Anyway, forget about it - just some riders with more money than sense.

I've seen people using tubs on clincher rims before but they knew what they were doing wrong - it was just necessity at the time. I suppose Campagnolo's idea could be misleading for some but people really need to know what they are buying. If you read Campagnolos blurb correctly then you shouldn't make such a stupid mistake.

I have just been out on my Sham 2way with GP 4000s. No problem at all I rode the front earlier and it was very steady, now with both it flys. The Hutchinson only story is just a wheeze to keep the game to themselves

When you put them on with tubes the noise you get on inflation sounds like the wheel creaking and the spokes doing weird things but it's just the tyre bedding into the wheel, the noise occurs at about 80 psi. You need to be absolutely sure the tube doesn't catch
between tyre and wheel.

I needed to pull on the last 10 inches of tyre, inflate to 40psi, deflate bang the tyre with the levers then inflate till the tube was inside properly. Bit of a pain but ........... They say don't mix French and Italian

Raced them today with no mishaps, no warm up , went from the gun managed 18 miles in raging winds with legs burning all the way, echelons,a first, being battered, tyres(GP 4000s) are fine. It was so hard that I forgot I had new wheels, some pretty good riders were hammered in this, war of attrition.
I will know more about how good they are when I race my normal course and of course when I find tubeless tyres that don't need a mortage for, capturing the market and then overcharging(£40 per tyre) means , for me anyway, that when another option comes along I will never go back to the
original innovator. You only rip me off the once, then I tell every one.

I'm giving this topic a kick since I am on the verge of buying these wheels and I cannot decide between the regulars and the 2 way fit version. I just sold my Neutron Ultra's, mainly because I couldn't mount tires to them easily enough.

I have the following questions, hope someone can find the time to answer them:

Can I put in a regular inner tube when I flat the tubeless tire (given it is only a small puncture?)

Is it easy to mount regular clincher tires onto the 2 way fit Shamals? I know it is supposedly very hard to mount tubeless tires, if this is not true, please let me know.

Any other advice regarding tubeless is of course very welcome! Thanks in advance.

... when I find tubeless tyres that don't need a mortage for, capturing the market and then overcharging(£40 per tyre) means , for me anyway, that when another option comes along I will never go back to theoriginal innovator. You only rip me off the once, then I tell every one.

Tell everyone what? Do you mean Hutchies are too expensive? If you think they are expensive you should check the prices on IRC tubeless.

I know it is supposedly very hard to mount tubeless tires, if this is not true, please let me know.

I am running Campagnolo Eurus 2-way fit with Hutchinson Fusion 3's in tubeless mode. I do not find it particularly difficult to mount the tires and flats are a thing of the past. I run mine with about 30-40 ml. of Caffelatex. I am able to get the tires to seat with a floor pump, using soapy water at the bead to help the seal. In two years I have had only one flat, due to a large gash caused by glass that destroyed my rear tire. Other than that there were a couple of occasions where I saw some Caffelatex being spit out through small holes that self-sealed. In those instances my tire did not lose noticeable amounts of air pressure and I continued my ride without doing more than wiping a little Caffelatex off of my seat tube. I have had so much success with the Caffelatex, that I have not tried Stan's, though it sounds like people have good results with it as well.

I have ridden some similar Hutchinson clinchers (i.e. similar to the Fusion 3) with tubes and the ride was not very good. However, the Hutchinsons used in tubeless mode have a much smoother ride; at least as smooth as any Michelin or Conti clincher run with a tube. And I would say that the Fusion 3 lasts longer than the Michelin or Conti, so though the price is steep, you get a tire that lasts longer and you should save money on tubes.

Thanks for the replies guys. If fitting regular clinchers is easy then there really is no reason why not to go with 2 way fit, only a relatively small weight penalty. I mean, all options are kept open. I'm going for a ride on the bike and ponder over this

Can any WW tell me the difference between 2-way wheels and regular clinchers.

I have a new set of regular Zonda wheels and would like to try tubeless.These Zondas don't have any spoke hole cutouts, but exactly how do they differ from 2-way Zondas ?

At the moment I'm thinking all I need to do is buy a tubeless valve and some tubeless Hutchinson Fusion 3s and run a minimal amount of sealant , Stans or similar.OR would this be too risky when compared to using 2-Way Zondas.....

_________________All this from an old bloke who wishes he was faster and could climb better...... enjoy the ride!

Tyres can be tight to get on and can be taken off with tyre levers if you puncture when out, but most campag wheels are the same. They pop onto the rim when you pump them up just like car/motorbike tubeless tyres.

Here is my bike with 2009 Shamal Ultra non-2-way fit. Since I run a Shimano drivetrain - the wheelset was about 52g heavier, at a total of 1503g. The power transfer is direct, and flex-free. It also helps I have one of the stiffest, frames and cranksets ever made too:

_________________Due to the urging of all the ladies...I do NOT shave my legs!

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum